Treat to target and shared decision-making in systemic lupus erythematosus from the patients' perspective: results from an international patient survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Treat-to-target (T2T) is being recognised as a promising concept to significantly improve the outcomes of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Despite its success being closely tied to patients' involvement, the patients' perspective regarding T2T has not been evaluated. We aimed to investigate patients' attitude towards T2T and their involvement in treatment decisions. METHODS: We designed a 13-question online survey on T2T, examining acceptance, willingness to participate in T2T trials, and potential obstacles. This was distributed amongst Dutch, Austrian, German, and Bulgarian patient organisations. RESULTS: In total, 863 patients participated of whom 48.4% reported being in remission, while 13% were uncertain about their remission status. Regarding shared decision-making, 62.1% reported being somewhat fully involved in treatment decisions, while 20.7% felt uninvolved. Shared decision-making was associated with disease duration, Dutch origin and satisfaction with treatment and remission. As for satisfaction with their health status, 56.2% were somewhat fully satisfied, while 29.3% were unsatisfied. 65.5% were satisfied with their treatment, 14.8% were not. Leading treatment goals were quality of life (QoL) normalisation (37.4%), organ damage prevention (24.6%) and absence of disease activity (22.6%). T2T was mainly seen positive with additional doctors' visits and initiation of new immunosuppressive drugs as potential disadvantages. CONCLUSIONS: T2T was perceived as beneficial with improvement of QoL as the most important treatment goal and the possibility of additional doctors' visits and initiation of new immunosuppressive agents as potential drawbacks. Patients unsatisfied with their health status and treatment may benefit from greater involvement in treatment decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".